On Tue, Jun 10, 2014 at 12:41 AM, Vlatko Salaj <vlatko.sa...@goodone.tk> wrote:
> "introducing new ML requirements" has already been > characterised as not an ML solution. we have a few > of them already, and all much simpler than any YADAs. > The person on this list that actually represents a mailing list so far seems to like the idea, and has explained why to some extent. I think that's much more valuable feedback. A proposal like this one might introduce new requirements, sure, but if they solve a huge problem and people are willing to implement it, then so what? They're worth the work in that case. My understanding of the constraint is that we need to avoid new requirements that affect common mailing list practices, like footers and Subject field tagging. DKIM-Delegate establishes a requirement that mailing lists sign the modified message in full. In a lot of cases, list software does that already; often it's the case that other software even does that for them, so how much of a burden is this really? The burden is actually on signers (who need to add DKIM-Delegate fields) and on verifiers (who need to look for them and know what to do with them), not on the lists themselves. Or do you mean something else when you say "new ML requirements"? > An example of why postings like you've > > sent are unhelpful is that it implicitly > > invites others to offer summarily-dismissive > > notes about your notes. > Speaking personally, I usually ignore the summarily-dismissive notes because I don't learn anything from them. The more well-developed criticisms are the valuable ones. > there's also nothing productive in *personal* thinking > that DKIM is a holy grail of authorization, > and based on that *personal* motivation, sponging endless > YADAs [aka yet another DKIM addons], wasting urs > and our time in process. > This is drifting toward the ad hominem again. Careful, please. -MSK
_______________________________________________ dmarc mailing list dmarc@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
